Impossible violin harmonic?

[czoller]

If my read of this section of manuscript is accurate within a violin part, there is a slur between harmonics on D and G. Dorico is flagging the harmonic on D as being "impossible". Is this true or is the interpretation of this manuscript possibly incorrect?

[MichelRE]

they're not exactly "impossible" harmonics.
it does specify on the G string,

while Dorico is technically correct in that the D can not be achieved "at that pitch" as a harmonic on the G string. So the circle notation is actually incorrect.

the D would have to be a touch 5th harmonic (sounding an octave and a 5th higher), then the G would be touch octave (sounding an octave up.)

I can't say that's exactly a standard way of notating the effect, mind you. this is hand written, so probably a tiny bit "sloppy" just to get the idea down on paper.

I prefer a "modern" way of writing the harmonics: include the fundamental as a regular note, then the harmonic diamond a 5th above that for the 1st harmonic D, and for the G it would be more standard to have the "o" circle above the note, instead of below.

but this image makes it a bit hard to tell if those are really supposed to be harmonic circles. Are you sure that's what's intended? because honestly they look more like lower case "u" than anything.

Ravel, who made great use of all sorts of harmonics in both chamber and orchestral works would probably have notated both notes as diamond noteheads, with IV above to indicate the string.

[NeeraWM]

I actually like the new convention proposed by Gould where every natural harmonic between the nut and the half of the string (excluded) should be written with a diamond notehead and nothing else, meaning to touch that exact point on the string without any other interference.
As MichelRE said, the D4 on the G string sounds D5 and G4 will sound ... G4 (touch octave of G3 = G4).

[MichelRE]

the only reason I don't like Gould's suggestion is that it would in many cases require including string numbers every time.
Which is why I prefer to simply include the open string fundamental and the touch diamond.
Thus far I've had no issues with musicians not understanding my intent, no discussions during rehearsals. The only time there have been questions is when a particular musician has suggested "may I use x position harmonic rather than the one written? it's easier for me to produce."

[czoller]

Thanks very much for your input, Michel!

but this image makes it a bit hard to tell if those are really supposed to be harmonic circles. Are you sure that's what's intended? because honestly they look more like lower case "u" than anything.

See the attached image for other written instances of this figuration. The composer has first violins repeat this for a good fifteen bars. Do you think it could be anything else?

[czoller]

And would this be the more correct/modern way of notating what it appears the composer is calling for in this passage (if it is a slur between two harmonics)?

[MichelRE]

No, I would prefer one of these notations.

Depending on how much of this notation there is, it might be an idea to either use a continuation line on the "IV", or write "sempre" or "sim" right after it. (again, technically, the string designation, whether sul G or IV as I wrote it, is not necessary since there IS only one string on which these harmonics could be played.)

a quick heads up...
the circle for harmonics is when you are showing the actual sounding note, in this case, the G in the treble clef.
The diamond shows where you place your finger to achieve the harmonic, so you would NOT write an octave touch artificial harmonic as you did.
Think of it this way: the lower "real" note shows you what the base note should be, so you are actually fingering (pressing solidly on) the string ON that note (in the case of a non-opened string.) The diamond shows where you are lightly barely touching the string with another finger, to achieve the harmonic you want.

The lowest natural harmonic you can achieve on an open string is the octave (touch octave.) Then the octave and a half (touch 5th.) Then harmonics get a tiny bit less secure on the violin with touch minor 3rd and touch major 3rd. The former giving two octaves and a perfect 5th, the latter two octaves and a major 3rd.

[MichelRE]

by the way, the sound of my example would give a higher D (sounding 4th line D), and a lower G (sounding as written, 2nd line.)

Looking at my example, I might propose using all diamond noteheads instead also, for consistency's sake.
You would notate like in the violin 2 line, but the G would not have the o and would be written exactly where it is, but as a white diamond notehead.

Out of curiosity, what is this piece, who wrote it? (no names really required)

[czoller]

Thanks a lot for the brief string harmonic lesson, Michel. This is an area of string technique and notation which I never really understood but it's much clearer to me now. How about this notation based upon your suggestion? The dotted line continues over the entire passage and ends with a downward hook which is fairly common these days.

[NeeraWM]

The second diamond (G) is not necessary and could puzzle some players as they may be induced to play the G on the D string, even just accidentally.